FEARS OVER MOSQUE FUNDING REVIVE FRENCH CHURCH-STATE DEBATE
Received Monday, 31 October 2005 07:08:00 GMT
PARIS, Oct 31 (AFP) A call for a change to a century-old French law to allow the state to fund new mosques has sent sparks flying in a society deeply attached to the separation of religion and state.

Concerned that a shortage of mosques is allowing extremists to gain a foothold among Frances 5.5 million Muslims by funding places of worship, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy earlier this month named a panel to look into the prickly question.

Due to report to the government in June next year, the committee is being asked, among other things, to suggest ways of reviewing the 1905 secularity law that bans the state from funding places of worship.

The initiative placed Sarkozy squarely at odds with both President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who sees the century-old law as one of the pillars of our republican system and rejects the idea of updating it.

True, more work is needed to recognise the rightful place of Frances Muslims, Villepin said, but as members of a strictly secular community.

The two men, rivals both aiming for the presidency in 2007, tried to smooth over their differences on this and other matters at a joint press conference this week.

Sarkozy has repeatedly argued that breaking the French taboo to provide public money for mosques and imams would be the best way of bringing the Muslim community into the mainstream, out of the garages and basements it is often forced to use as unofficial prayer rooms.

"To separate French Islam from foreign influences," he said last month, "let us give it the means to be independent."

Islamic radicals are already thought to control 20 mosques in the country, according to Frances domestic intelligence service, which also says militants are increasingly congregating in secret prayer-rooms, out of sight of the authorities.

A year after a hotly-disputed ban on Muslim headscarves and other religious signs came into force in French schools, the debate on funding is the latest in a string of delicate negotiations between Frances government and its large Muslim minority.

Despite Frances reluctance to be seen as supporting any religious group, concerns over the rise of Islamic extremism have led it to take a more and more active role in the affairs of the Muslim community in recent years.

Two important steps have already been taken to bring greater transparency to the way the religion is funded.

In 2003, French Islam obtained its first ever officially-recognised representative body, the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM), which has responsibility for issues ranging from the funding of mosques to the ritual slaughter of animals.

Now a recognised public institution, it is the governments main point of contact with the Muslim community.

And in June this year a government-backed "Foundation for Islam" was also set up to oversee the financing of the religion in France, grouping private donations from France and abroad, held in a state-owned bank to ensure maximum transparency, to pay for building and renovating mosques as well as training imams.

Many in the political establishment are against taking the states role any further, including the CFCMs president Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Paris mosque, who immediately backed Villepin in opposing any change to the secularity law.

But other voices within the CFCM took a less hostile view and the influential rector of the Lyon mosque, Kamel Kabtane, supports a review of the 1905 law.

Among the majority Roman Catholic Church, the conference of bishops said it believed the current church-state balance should be upheld, but did recognise that certain "practical problems" needed tackling.

The response from other religious groups has been mixed: Protestant leaders said they would welcome a rethink of the law, but Jewish community leaders have come out against any change.

A collective groan rose from the press following Sarkozys announcement with the conservative Le Figaro warning it would fuel the tug-of-war between his camp and followers of Chirac and Villepin, already at odds over economic policy and such issues as Turkeys bid to join the European Union.

The left-leaning Liberation said the debate could easily turn into a slinging match, in a country still bruised by a fiery, painful debate over the Islamic headscarf in schools.

Meanwhile, the opposition Socialists scolded the government for sending out mixed messages on such a sensitive issue, and urged the president and prime minister to keep their ministers in check.

To well understand the problem, you have to refer to the law of 1905 and to administrative laws.

In 1905, the law of separation of Church and State : the french State got the propriety of all the religious buildings built before 1905 (so, all the great cathedrales, all the ancient churches....not far of all the christian churches and buildings, in fact). And these religious buildings, propriety of the French State, were dedicated to the use of the religion, for eternity.
And the State got the propriety of the cathedrales, the territorial collectivities of the "simple" churches. in 1905 lots of people thought : "it is an inqualifiable ingerence of the State in the religious life". But after they saw it was a not so bad thing : the State can pay to rebuilt, restaure....the religious buildings.

But only for the religious buildings built BEFORE 1905 : the most part of the mosquees, maybe all, were built after 1905 : the State can't pay for the mosquees : it would be against the law.

So the mosquee have not a ot of funds, of money. And then, there are few mosquees for a lot of people, or sick mosquee, not nice, miserable.....
So, if the State pay for the mosquees :

- good thing, because the mosquees would be nicer, more able to the religion, and then, it can reduce the risk of extremism - it's ofen in the small and miserable mosquees that the fanatics are.

- for the egality : thye muslims have the same rights than the other : to have good places to pray.

It can reduce the risk of extremism? lol ok whatever.
I'd say if they don't like the setup in France tell em to move back to the shitholes they came from. I would think that building bigger and better mosques would only encourage more to come. But hey if the French want to bend over backwards to try to appease Muslims and let them overrun their country, by all means go for it.

It can reduce the risk of extremism? lol ok whatever.
I'd say if they don't like the setup in France tell em to move back to the shitholes they came from. I would think that building bigger and better mosques would only encourage more to come. But hey if the French want to bend over backwards to try to appease Muslims and let them overrun their country, by all means go for it.

Click to expand...

why do the Muslims not have the right to pray in the same conditions than the Catholics or Christians in general, the Jews..... ?

You assimilate Muslim (people who believe in Allah and Islam, a normal believer) and Islamist (a fanatic religious, extremist, with a personnal interpretation, wrong, of the Q'ran).
2 different things.

You don't compare a fanatic inquisitor of the XVIth C. and a simple catholic of the XVIth. c.
so don't compare a muslim and an islamist.

Your sentence was racist and untolerant, in violation of your Constitution, wasn't it ?

why do the Muslims not have the right to pray in the same conditions than the Catholics or Christians in general, the Jews..... ?

Click to expand...

When did I ever state they cannot pray in the same 'conditions' as others? I would think they have the right to privately fund building a church like any other religion.

padisha emperor said:

Your sentence was racist and untolerant, in violation of your Constitution, wasn't it ?

Click to expand...

Even if my 'sentence' was 'racist and untolerant', its not in violation of my Constitution (What my constitution has to do with France in this case is beyond me). Its my opinion, and my constitution allows me to have whatever opinion I want (We call it Freedom of Speech, not sure if you have that in your socialist country). That means I have the right to say "Piss on all arabs" if I want, however that is not what I stated to begin with.

My point was, that Muslims culture is so vastly different than that of Christians that some things that are acceptable to them, are not to us, and vice versa. It makes no sense to me for a Muslim to move into a western country and expect that they change the laws to fit their culture. I would say the same thing about Christians moving into Saudi Arabia and demanding law changes to accommodate them. Its absurd. If the muslims are able to live in a country and live with its laws thats fine, worship allah all you want.

I'm simply giving my opinion in this case in France. Its not my country, so like I said before, if you want to throw taxpayer money at funding more Mosques then go right ahead. Taxpaid recruiting grounds for terrorists, wonderful idea!

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!